‘Avengers: Infinity War’ to Be Shot Entirely With Imax Cameras

Every manufacturer will tell you that you don't need 4K until they have a 4K camera or TV to sell. Then everyone needs 4K. It's the old sales notion - "sell what you can make".

Meanwhile -

Comcast is answering the call for 4K content with the announcement of an ultra HD-capable set-top box to debut later this year for its Xfinity service. Customers will get 4K/UHD (3840 X 2160-pixel) video the only way it's currently practical — as online streams.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/comcast-debut...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjAwMDNfMQRzZWMDc2M-
 
VinceinLA said:
And then... "Comcast announces that no one could tell the difference and goes back to HD to save money"
Click to expand...
Actually, the upgrades to the infrastructure are minimal. This is more of a coder-decoder solution for the broadband providers.

The bidirectional set-top boxes will also enable an unlimited TV channel universe and save the pipe owners the "last mile" costs.
 
I really don't think resolution matters anymore (except for perhaps passive 3D). Anything 1080p and beyond (in 2D) is solid for a display resolution. Most release prints were around that or less and most digital cinemas have been selling tickets to 2K movies for years now without barely a complaint from Joe public. I'm more interested in seeing these displays that show a brighter image with a wider dynamic range and a bigger rec2020 color palette.
 
On the positive side, this new tech means that it might lead to being more easily assessable to film makers of films like Samsara or Baraka or anyone who wants finer detail in their mesmerizing tale of shock and awe. IMAX technology has been minimally used in the past and it always starts with the big and bold useless entertainment models to show off the technology because they have the budget and then later on it's used to it's maximum artistic ability. 3D has not had this privilege very often and it's still being used for entertainment and not for enlightenment.
 
This must be the post NAB news slump...

Personally I'm not really all that impressed with iMax movies. Sure the screen is larger but who really cares? I'm there for the story and entertainment value and not on a quest to see a movie on the largest screen possible.

I wish Hollywood would stop chasing useless gimmicks like 3D, 48p and iMax and start focusing on delivering richer content. I agree with Roxics above that Joe Public is really scratching their head to notice any value from any of these things. I understand Hollywood, or more likely the theaters, want to find a way to jump start ticket prices but I don't think this is the way.

Some of the more profitable movies in Hollywood are shot on lower resolution cameras. Avatar was shot at 1920x1080. Most of the Marvel movies were shot on Arri cameras which are nowhere near 3k unless you shoot anamorphic (which Marvel has not done). Many other big money making movies were shot on RED at 4k or 5k but have 100% of their post done at 2k. I fail to see what I am missing from any of these movies which are visually stunning and enjoyable to endless levels of funness. It is these lower resolution movies pumping cash into Hollywood. Notice a pattern here? Know what movie was shot at 4k and mastered at 4k? Elysium. How about the bloated Hobbit? Higher resolution will never take the place of a good movie. I'm not saying Avengers will bomb if it is shot on iMax, just that it will not need it. It will suck in our cash even if it was shot on a GH2. Movies that try to push the technology do always seem to fail. Although Elysium and The Blobbit failed for many other reasons. One could attribute those failings to focusing so much energy on the technology aspect.

Throwing more pixels at Robert Downey Jr. will not make him funnier. The dude already has a big enough head, making it bigger on screen will not change that. I stopped watching the iMax version of movies after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix because it just wasn't worth it. I just like a normal everyday movie on a normal everyday screen with normal everyday popcorn. Honestly this is more like having a normal comic book at 6"x10" but now Marvel wants to sell that same comic on 11"x17" paper. Still the same comic but now we pay more for the same thing.
 
DLD said:
B&W films are just not a popular item. One can even take a "recent" classic like the "Raging Bull" and people won't tune in. That is why Ted Turner decided to colorize the old classics like "Casablanca" and nowadays one can find the colorized version of even the Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy.
Click to expand...

Seems very true. I had actually meant that even the films shot in color in the 60s are unpopular (as in, they have limited distribution today, despite being "masterpieces" or "classics"), simply because they're old, but I think you're right that black and white certainly doesn't help for mass consumption.

On another note, can anyone confirm if Avengers 2 was mastered to 4K? On IMDB, it says 2K Digital Intermediate. (despite several larger capture formats)

Which would mean that even the latest, greatest, biggest budget blockbuster just baked itself into a sub-4K master...so yes, 4K is coming...but slowly.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Farnes said:
Seems very true. I had actually meant that even the films shot in color in the 60s are unpopular (as in, they have limited distribution today, despite being "masterpieces" or "classics"), simply because they're old, but I think you're right that black and white certainly doesn't help for mass consumption.

On another note, can anyone confirm if Avengers 2 was mastered to 4K? On IMDB, it says 2K Digital Intermediate. (despite several larger capture formats)

Which would mean that even the latest, greatest, biggest budget blockbuster just baked itself into a sub-4K master...so yes, 4K is coming...but slowly.
Click to expand...

Not sure about Avengers: AoU but I know Guardians of the Galaxy was 2k all the way through and that is pretty darn recent.

It sounds like The Arri would have shot 2880x1206 for AoU. Not sure if that was shot anamorphic or not but most of the other Marvel movies shot with that camera have been a cropped 2.39:1 and not anamorphic. If it was shot scope then it would have likely used 1936x1620. It could have used open gate as well I guess. Not sure about that one.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
This must be the post NAB news slump...

Personally I'm not really all that impressed with iMax movies. Sure the screen is larger but who really cares? I'm there for the story and entertainment value and not on a quest to see a movie on the largest screen possible.

I wish Hollywood would stop chasing useless gimmicks like 3D, 48p and iMax and start focusing on delivering richer content. I agree with Roxics above that Joe Public is really scratching their head to notice any value from any of these things. I understand Hollywood, or more likely the theaters, want to find a way to jump start ticket prices but I don't think this is the way.

.
Click to expand...

Agree. First you need a great scrip. Then you need great actors and a great director. 48p, 3d, IMAX, not necessary and doesn't really do anything to make great movie any better.

UNLESS you are making Piranha 3d, then 3d is great because blood is flying out of the screen at you and who doesn't love that? Avatar 3d? Bleh, I don't need to watch a movie through a picture winddow. Looked just fine in 2d.
 
I'm having doubts that Peter Jackson's scriptwriter came to him and said, "Peter, there are some important revisions we should talk over before we film this scene." To which Peter Jackson said, "I'm too busy trying to get a 4k master to be worrying about the script right now."
 
It seems films like The Avengers or Interstellar are the best equivalents to films like Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey or any other film that was shot in 70mm to create an visually epic scope in the story. Would West Side Story be the same film if it was shot on 35mm? How many people saw Titanic in 70mm and is there a real difference? Would the average person want to see Lawrence of Arabia because it looks like an epic tale both in story and in visuals? Probably and the detail in the image would help maximize their experience. Does The Avengers have that need too? Maybe. The film makers think so, and nobody has ever shot an entire feature in Digital IMAX before. So eventually, we can hope that somebody with a great story thinks that this technology will enhance that story.
 
It seems that all of these factors - resolution, frame rate and the dynamic range - are simply dependent upon the computational power of their cameras (and/or recorders) and, much like your computers, that can only go up.

The resolution-to-home will probably stop at 8K but the dynamic range of the high end TV will increase as well. A current monitor/TV may be ~ 300 nits. The new models are purporting 1000 nits and Dolby Vision demoed a 4,000 nits proof-of-concept design at the CES.

And by the time the resolution-HDR race is over, the holographic race will begin.
 
I think it's a little strange in this endless back and forth about resolution, that nobody here talks about IMAX/65mm/70mm having a different aesthetic to Super35, regardless of resolution. Depth of field is affected, the image has a different "feel". It's that full-frame-look, to borrow a photography term. Not necessarily better or desirable for every film, but distinctive and gorgeous when applied with skill and artistry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top